redwallfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Winifred
Is the law broken? On p.32 of the US version of High Rhulain, Skipper Banjon tells Tiria she can't be a Skipper because of a old otter law that's been going on for a long time; saying ottermaids can't be Skippers. Did Winifred break that law? And on p.21 of the US version of High Rhulain, it also mentions The Methusaleh and Matthias Bells, so this clearly takes place after Redwall. Can someone answer this question? ~Layla Goldeneyes Afraid? You should be... 17:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC) I thought it was common knowledge that after Lord Brocktree all books are written chronologically. Argulor (talk) 02:42, April 10, 2016 (UTC) I don't remember her becoming Skipper. It's mentioned several places, but not on the actual article. Besides, in HR, Skipper mentions a specific tribe. Who knows how otter tribes could have changed over the period between Redwall and HR?--Martin the Loony Ve shoot it with our weaponries! 18:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC) I'm guessing that in the clan that Winifred belonged to, there were no restrictions that say ottermaids can't become Skippers.--Bluestripe the Wild For Salamandastron! 18:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your answers! I was just reading High Rhulain when I saw that. ~Layla Goldeneyes Afraid? You should be... 22:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Why doesn't Winifred wear clothes in the TV show? Thorn --There's a difference between being a stoat and a vermin...and I proved it to the world. 23:07, September 8, 2010 (UTC) Yo I think the reason Winifred doesen't wear clothes is because it would be such a hassle to put a dress on and off when ever you have to do otter business such as swimming to find something or just because she think its a waste of her time to wear threads that would look crummy anyway shes my kind of beast simple and yet can be understood Niko Banks (Talk) . 11:07 October 31 2010 (UTC) I'm pretty sure that she wasn't ever a Skipper. It was never mentioned. Winifred probably didn't even belong to a specific tribe or ottercrew-There are many otter characters who spent their seasons as a member of the Redwall community rather than as a traditional crew/tribesbeast. Shad, for example Gadra the Spear (talk) 13:42, May 16, 2014 (UTC) Her nudity Why does my edit of her being nude in the series get removed? It's a fact. Argulor (talk) 03:50, September 8, 2014 (UTC) :I think we've addressed your obsession with this sort of thing in the past. Stop. -- LordTBT Talk! 04:55, September 8, 2014 (UTC) It has nothing to do with obsession. It's a fact that she, unlike the other characters, goes bare in the series. Argulor (talk) 05:15, September 8, 2014 (UTC) Since you have not responded, I'm re-adding it. I don't understand why this is agitates you so much. Clearly it's something worth mentioning, yet you seem to think it's slanderous. Argulor (talk) 07:37, January 30, 2015 (UTC) "She, unlike the other characters, goes bare in the series." Actually, most characters dispense with clothing in Redwall. Some wear it for strictly cosmetic reasons, or when they actually need it (such as heavy coats for extreme weather), but usually, they don't wear trousers. Otters have been known to only wear belts, yes, for their essential supplies and weapons, because clothing slows them down while swimming. But one thing is certain: Animals cannot be "nude". They can't without having their fur shaved off! Wearing or not wearing clothing is not something worth mentioning, because plenty of animals in Redwall are unclothed. Winifred is not some kind of exception; she wasn't even mentioned like this: "Winifred was an otter, a merry sort of otter, who didn't wear any clothes, which was odd." I'll go back and re-read all passages about Winifred, but I'm sure that Jacques never gave a description that made a big deal out of the fact that she wasn't wearing any. He told you "stop," which was a reply enough. It doesn't authorize you to re-add it just because he didn't respond to your latest defense. Biggren (talk) I was talking about the TV series. Argulor (talk) 04:41, January 31, 2015 (UTC) Also, since when do most characters dispense with clothing in Redwall? I'm trying not to sound perverted to you guys, but you all seem to be extremely sensitive. But to quote LordTBT himself, the word "nude" doesn't even come up in any of the books, and the two times it does, it's made clear that modesty does exist in the universe. I was just stating a face. Winifred doesn't wear clothes in the TV series but almost everyone else does. If everyone here is so sensitive to think that's a perverted statement, I really think you need to loosen up a little! Argulor (talk) 17:56, February 6, 2015 (UTC) :: :Since when do most characters not dispense with clothing? It seems acceptable not to wear clothing in Redwall. If it's widely accepted and not seen as immoral (and it isn't immoral and it is in fact accepted, because animals have fur), then why wouldn't they? Many, many characters are only described as "wearing a leather belt", etc., so it is a matter of one's own imagination of whether or not they were also wearing extra clothing over their fur coats. Unlike humans, the natural order of animals is not to wear clothing. Thus one automatically presumes that, if not mentioned as wearing clothing, the animal didn't wear any. It doesn't have to be said, "He did not wear clothing." for that animal to not have worn it. Conversely, with human characters, it does not have to be said, "He wore clothing." for the human to have worn clothing. It is a matter of logic. :I don't believe I said that I thought it was "perverted" to state that she doesn't wear clothes. If you read all of what I said, you see that I said the opposite. Animals not wearing clothing is hardly "perverted", it's a normal way of life- and to explicitly state in a character article as a point of trivia that "Winifred is nude in the TV Series" is extraneous and insignificant as a result. Animals not wearing clothing is simply not a big deal. Otters for the most part go unclothed or with only practical necessity (belts for weapons and tools, haversacks for vittles, etc), not only Winifred. What point does mentioning that one particular otter is unclothed serve? It would appear perverted to your average Wikia user perusing that article, because after already automatically assuming the character to not be wearing anything over its fur coat, they see it brazenly stated again to them, as if it stands as an important point of the character. Biggren (talk) You act as if the Redwall universe is the real one, in which of course it's normal for animals to go unclothed. They are two different things. The animals in Redwall are humanized. And their attires are constantly described or, if not, implied. If they don't describe what they're wearing, it's because it's unimportant or insignificant. I mean, they might mentioned someone pocketing something in their tunic even though it wasn't previously stated they were wearing one. In short, one should assume they are clothed as much as any human because, well, they're humanized animals. There's a difference! That said, I want to add that Riggu Fellis mentions his ancestors were pets. Does this means some of the animals have evolved from a human universe? Argulor (talk) 22:41, February 6, 2015 (UTC) :Not quite, my friend, not quite! You say the animals are humanized. I know that they are partially humanized. But not wearing clothes is acceptable and not seen as immoral in Redwall. I don't act like it's our real world, I act like it is what it is: it is normal for animals to go unclothed in the Redwall series; I know this to be fact because there have been at least a few scores of characters described as not wearing clothing, skipper's otters in particular. Does that sound like humans? No. They're somewhere in-between human and animal in respect to their society, and if not wearing clothing is acceptable(and it is), they should not be assumed to be wearing clothing- since it isn't a staple of animal society in Redwall. Clothing definitely isn't a staple- otherwise, why is it acceptable to go unclothed? I'll restate my point that it is regular for animals to go unclothed in Redwall. It's obviously a matter of personal preference on the part of the animals in the series. Some wear clothes, some don't, and when it boils down to it at the end of the day, it is still normal to go unclothed in Redwall and so the point of this "Winifred's nudity" thing is completely insignificant and immaterial. So what if Winifred goes unclothed? It isn't a big deal! It's pretty normal in Redwall! Sure, some wear clothes, but they aren't considered nude if they don't! :Redwall Wiki tries to keep its articles to-the-point, and especially tries to avoid offending anyone. I'm not personally offended by this, but other people might be, and that's the whole point. Can't you see how a little note saying "Winifred is completely nude in the TV series!" would offend some people? If it is within logic to see that little note offending 13-year-olds and 14-year-olds and 15-year-olds who come on here (and besides that it is an extraneous piece of information that is somewhat obvious to someone watching the TV program anyway), why put it there? What purpose does it serve? The information isn't useful. It isn't even a point of interest, or curiosity- because it is considered normal conduct in Redwall to go unclothed. :As for Riggu Felis, I didn't recall that; but I haven't read High Rhulain in awhile. Yes, there are a lot of discrepancies in the books. What does that have to do with Winifred's "nudity"? Biggren (talk) It has to do with the fact that it hints that the animals have evolved from a human world. Also, there have never been any characters, let alone scores, who Jacques has explicitly described as not wearing clothing, including Skipper's otters. If there is a passage that states that, I'd very much like to know where and in what edition you're reading, considering the only moment I know of is a passage that includes the line, "naked backs of the rowers" in Outcast of Redwall Argulor (talk) 19:59, February 8, 2015 (UTC) :We don't know that. How does that mean that it evolved from a human world exactly? That they were "pets" means nothing. Riggu didn't say, "We were pets of human beings." A pet is just a subservient animal that is cared for by another. We can't imply that Jacques meant that they were raised by humans. We simply do not know that. That's a big assumption. :: :And that's illogical. How could otters swim as well as real-world otters if they were bulked down with clothing? Please tell me when in the books trousers were ever described? I recall only a few rare instances, hardly a basis for that all animals wear them. And surely you don't think that Asmodeus or General Ironbeak's ravens wear clothing? (They're seen as sentient beings capable of intelligent thought, often more clever than rats, so they are classed as normal characters like the others. Just because the birds were not explicity said to be naked doesn't mean that they wore clothes by default! The answer is that it is impractical to wear clothing in flight for a bird, just as it is impractical to wear clothing while swimming quickly like an otter does. If anything, it is implied that the otters don't wear clothing, because they use their rudders to swim- and a rudder couldn't operate very well if one were wearing trousers. It would be cumbersome. Since otters are never ever described as wearing trousers and trousers are impractical to wear, it isn't automatically assumed taht they wear clothes; instead, it's more logical to believe that they don't). It seems much of this is your imagination of how things are in the Redwall world, just as I have my own imagination of how it is. Jacques said himself that much of it was up to the imagination of the reader. There's nothing wrong with that. But the thing is, many of your assumptions (and mine) are not covered in the books. :And again, how is a nudity reference needed or useful? You still haven't addressed that bit, which was my main concern to begin with. And really, you have nothing to prove to me. Assumptions by nature can't be completely proven. I can't prove mine, you can't prove yours. And I'm not in charge here. I don't make the rules. This is just how I see things. :: :The most important thing, however, is that LordTBT told you to stop. Wikia says that users are to follow orders from the head administrator on a wiki, even if they aren't pleased with his decision, if it doesn't violate Wikia ToU. LordTBT didn't break the ToU by deciding not to include nudity references on an article, so he is acting in his capacity as an administrator. It doesn't matter what the discussion is about; if the admin says stop, it's over. Biggren (talk) I'm sorry, I was just confused when you said scores of characters were described as not wearing clothing. For the record, I never pictured Asmodeus as wearing clothing, of course. General Ironbeak's birds are another matter, as is General Ironbeak himself. Sure, clothes could weigh them down, but they are...well, an army of birds and thus are probably wearing something to symbolize their status. In fact, if you look at Mangiz in the series, you'll see he's wearing a hood! I don't know. I never could figure out the birds. I assumed all characters wore clothes, but I wasn't sure what to assume with the birds. Argulor (talk) 07:18, February 9, 2015 (UTC) And as for why "nudity" matters, I guess it just comes across to me as the characters really putting themselves out there. even if they "wear" fur. So I'm interested as to which ones officially do. Argulor (talk) 08:01, February 9, 2015 (UTC) Oi've sayed et afore an' oi'll say et agin: ee animals be offen seed a-wurrin' clothes furr cosmeddick reazuns, loike thet hood o' Mangiz ee burdbag's. Trinkets, necklaces, tailrings, an' earrings be cosmeddeck an' net furr modesty's sake h'et all. Mangiz duzzent wurr h'any clothes on 'is lower body (whurr et wudd h'arctually matter), an' neither be h'any o' ee uther burdbag villyuns. FUr an' feathers surrpintly cover one's body suffishuntly whurr modesty be's concerned. Et bain't h'immodest not to be a-wurrin' clothers, so et bain't a point uv exclusivity, see moi point? Oi daown't dizzugree wi' ee thet they wurr clothers, ownly thet et bain't h'immodest to not be a-wurrin 'em. An' et be indeed vurry odd thet ownly a few beasts in ee TV sereez daown't wurr clothers, bet et h'ain't immodest. Yé veréth nûn thelûbrién so! :But that's not what she's doing at all, and that puts a real sexual spin on it. There is nothing sexual about anything in the Redwall series. Nothing. -- LordTBT Talk! 23:52, February 10, 2015 (UTC) ::Precisely! There is no "modesty" or "immodesty" in Redwall. LordTBT hit the nail right on the head. Focusing on supposed "nudity" (which is a nonexistent concept in Redwall) sounds- no, is -perverted and obscene, even if you, Argulor, don't think of it that way. Most people will, and that's all that matters when it comes to an article that hundreds of people, many of them young and not in need of such a vulgar "point of trivia", will peruse and see. This is a wiki. It's for information about characters. It all boils down to that the need of that addition to the article is zero. It's extraneous, like I pointed out three times over, and would only serve to offend more people than it would supposedly "help". (Talk!)